Judicial "payback" disturbing

May 17, 2012

Three Florida Supreme Court justices already had been targeted for defeat by conservative activists before they recently handed their opponents some ammunition.

Justices Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince, up for retention in November's election, got help from court staff in a last-minute scramble to beat the deadline for filing the necessary paperwork. State Rep. Scott Plakon, a Longwood Republican, pounced, asking Gov. Rick Scott for an investigation.

Plakon pointed to a state law that bars candidates from using public employees during working hours to assist their campaigns. Lawyers speaking for the justices denied they'd done anything illegal, and said other high court members had used staff before for the same reason.

An investigation is in order. We've got not objection to a probe that'll settle the question.

This editorial board has spoken out many times when public servants are suspected of disregarding the laws they are supposed to uphold and defend — most recently in the case of speeding police officers.

The public has a right to expect that Supreme Court justices serving on the highest court in the state also follow the law. This is a significant principle.

But the flap over the justices' paperwork shouldn't overshadow a broader principle at stake in the challenge they face this year to keep their jobs: judicial independence.

Florida's Supreme Court justices and appeals court judges are appointed by the governor in a nonpartisan, merit-based process. They normally come up for approval or rejection by voters every six years in retention elections.

Voters properly consider if justices or judges are still fit to serve, not whether they've issued any rulings that offended politicians or interest groups.

The group leading this year's charge to unseat the three justices, Restore Justice 2012, has accused them of "activism." The group is spotlighting the three justices' votes to strike from the 2010 ballot a proposed constitutional amendment, sponsored by Plakon, that purported to let Floridians opt out of federal health care reform, including its mandate to buy health insurance.

By a 5-2 vote, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found the amendment confusing and misleading. Even so, the vote outraged amendment backers.

But bouncing the three justices from the high court as payback for that ruling or others would be an abuse of the retention process. Worse, it could make others still on the bench wary or even unwilling to issue controversial or unpopular rulings for fear of losing their jobs.

Floridians count on their courts to uphold the rule of law and stand up when needed to the other two branches of government, the governor and Legislature.

If justices and judges start making decisions based on public opinion or political expediency instead of the law, Florida's democracy will be in trouble.